Last month, it was reported in Parliament that a Penal Code Review Committee was formed in July 2016 to “conduct a thorough and comprehensive review” of the Penal Code, Singapore’s primary criminal legislation.

The Committee aims to complete its work later this year, and the Government will invite feedback from the public on the recommendations.

The last comprehensive review of the Penal Code was completed in 2007. Parliament then considered some 77 amendments and the repeal of four provisions.

That review was better known for Parliament’s decision to retain section 377A of the code, which criminalises consensual sex between two adult men.

The Penal Code, an offshoot of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, was imported into the Singapore (then part of the Straits Settlements) in 1871 with few revisions.

With piecemeal changes over the years, the Penal Code has served us relatively well but any easy comfort that it continues to be fit for purpose in the 21st century is misplaced.

Laws need to reflect the evolving values, imperatives, and aspirations of Singaporeans and Singapore.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that the committee is examining penal provisions that govern attempted suicide, immunity for marital rape, punishments for sex offenders, as well as creating “new criminal offences to deal with the changing crime environment”.

Comprising political office-holders, High Court judges, senior officials (from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Law and Home Affairs Ministries as well as the police), law academics, and lawyers, the committee is also undertaking a “fairly fundamental review” of the principles which form the foundation of not just the Penal Code but other criminal laws.

These include elements of criminal liability, the required mental element, intention or knowledge and the scope of mental health defences.

Such a comprehensive review is urgent and necessary. The general principles that undergird the Penal Code have a profound influence on other criminal laws.

They have withstood the test of time so far but are they relevant for the future?

Social attitudes towards crime and punishment continue to evolve as well, and the laws must keep pace.

Take a husband’s immunity for marital rape for instance.

Prior to the previous review in 2007, our laws did not recognise that a man could rape his wife.

But in 2007, the law was amended to lift the previous blanket immunity in limited circumstances, such as when there is evidence of a significant breakdown in the marital relationship.

In such a scenario, the law protects women who have clearly signalled their withdrawal of implied consent to a conjugal relationship.

But the law can and should go further.

The right of married women to say no to their husbands is long overdue. The committee should recommend that Parliament uphold this right.

WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS?

Advancements in human psychology and psychiatry and social attitudes have gradually changed our outlook on certain crimes, such as those who attempt suicide.

The need to reach out and help these people not only protects the sanctity of life but also promotes it.

The idea of deterrence is of course a cornerstone of criminal law but it may not be relevant to all “crimes” and there should not be a standard prescription of deterrence.

While criminal law is, in essence, concerned with crime, the criminal justice process now has to incorporate other disciplines such as such criminology, medical science, the social sciences and urban studies.

They not only contribute to law and order in our society but, more importantly, inform us how we can go about doing so while upholding the integrity and dignity of the victims of crime and rehabilitating and reintegrating the offenders.

The criminal landscape today is vastly different from what it was in the 19th century.

For instance, technology has made the perpetration of crime more widespread and with larger impact on victims and society.

Whether it is white-collar crime, sexual offences, or the peddling of deliberate falsehoods designed to cause public panic, technology is increasingly part of the criminal’s arsenal.

The state has an important role to play in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, making criminal law “public” and each of us a stakeholder. Furthermore, criminal law is concerned with the regulation of social order and spells out the fundamental requirements for a person’s treatment of others and their property.

Hence, the criminal laws must be clear, precise, and comprehensible to the public, and should not be the sole preserve of lawyers.

Across the world, progress in criminal justice reform is often slow. At the institutional level, changes to laws and policies not only take time to work through the criminal justice system, and the impact on stakeholders such as suspects, accused persons, prisoners and former prisoners and their families can often be difficult to measure.

As the management guru Peter Drucker once said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”.

The challenge then is to better attempt to see all these stakeholders as integral, not marginalised, members of our society and to remind all that we cannot neglect our criminal law system or see it as less important as other areas of law.

Over the years, our criminal justice system has evolved and is premised on five fundamental principles: (1) That the laws and criminal process must protect society from crime and uphold law and order; (2) Due process and the rule of law must be observed; (3) Punishment must be commensurate with the culpability of the offender and seriousness of the offence; (4) Law enforcement agencies must be adequately empowered to discharge their duties; and (5) Offenders must be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

Recent developments in Singapore such as the Keppel Offshore and Marine corruption scandal and the City Harvest Church ex-leaders’ conviction for criminal breach of trust highlight the need for our criminal laws and the administration of criminal justice to be reviewed not only regularly but also more frequently.

They also point to the imperative of updating our criminal laws and the administration of criminal justice to remain relevant to our social context and fit for purpose.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Eugene K B Tan is associate professor of law at the Singapore Management University.